forgottenrealmsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Dragon (magazine)
Can I get a word from any admins as to whether or not this would be the proper way to start this article? Also is it proper under "source material"? Johnnyriot999 12:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC) :The question is "what is the proper name of this article?" I think you have chosen a good one, which immediately avoids confusion with the creature, but is the magazine called merely "Dragon" or is it called "Dragon Magazine"? Fw190a8 01:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC) ::"TSR cancelled The Strategic Review and replaced it with The Dragon which later became Dragon Magazine and finally Dragon." Perhaps a cover of a more recent issue would clear that up? Johnnyriot999 13:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Index Name Fixes At one point, I'm going to fix the Index table with the proper names of the early issues, it was called The Dragon for the first bit, the simply Dragon for bit, then finally Dragon magazine. --Regis87 (talk) 17:51, January 26, 2018 (UTC) : I already did the first part before reading this. :) : We need to be careful with the Dragon vs. Dragon Magazine distinction though. The covers switched back and forth between both—''Dragon'' to Dragon Magazine (but "Magazine" was tiny text) and back to Dragon, but if you look at the official copyright info, it was Dragon Magazine into the 300s somewhere. : ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:22, January 26, 2018 (UTC) ::Guys, I might be able to generate that entire table using a template, so I recommend you concentrate your efforts on getting the articles up to date and accurate, because the template will (hopefully) be pulling the data from those articles, mainly the infobox, but potentially other stuff too. EDIT: Note that I just added the edition parameter to the template. :) —Moviesign (talk) 18:42, January 26, 2018 (UTC) ::: I noticed you added a Game Edition part to the infobox, already added to a few of the new articles I did today, and added to my master template file I work from. --Regis87 (talk) 18:48, January 26, 2018 (UTC) :::Awesome. We'll probably want to use a bot to do some major search-and-replaces across the wiki. ~ Lhynard (talk) 18:50, January 26, 2018 (UTC) :::: a bot would be incredibly helpful, for adding to the infoboxes on existing articles. Adding game editions and volume #'s shoul be a breeze for one, but would that allow for adding missing cover artists or editors, or would that be done manually? I'm not familiar with the scripting involved. Manually adding missing cover artists/editor isn't an issue for me, as i was going to go through the existing articles to add content sections anyways.--Regis87 (talk) 18:54, January 26, 2018 (UTC) :::::I'll see what I can do with the bot when I get home tonight. It may not be much, but we'll see. —Moviesign (talk) 19:17, January 26, 2018 (UTC) Table Styling Okay, please take a look at User:Moviesign/ListDragonMags and see what you think. Some articles listed the entire editing staff instead of just the editor-in-chief, so I had to lop off those extra ones because otherwise the middle column of the table was huge. The Name column currently comes from the page name, so if pages get renamed then these will change, but I can also pull the name from some other parameter we could add to the template if we keep the page names consistent. Any blanks or NaN that you see are fields that have not been given a value on that page. —Moviesign (talk) 22:33, January 26, 2018 (UTC) : amazing. I noticed some of the publishers are missing, like #115. This auto-generates? This will help a ton with article clean up too. Lots of editors missing links, for example. How would we make this work with the navbox? --Regis87 (talk) 23:06, January 26, 2018 (UTC) ::It does auto-generate each time you load the page, but there is a cache that takes a while to update, so to see changes immediately (for example, your change to #115 where you added the publisher doesn't show up yet) you will have append ?action=purge to the end of the URL for the actual template (not a page that transcludes it). Is it ready for prime time in your opinion? Do you want any changes or additions? The navbox is fine, unless you had something else in mind. —Moviesign (talk) 00:52, January 27, 2018 (UTC) :::I started adding the template, thank you so much. Will it add the missing issues after I make their pages? --Regis87 (talk) 13:35, January 27, 2018 (UTC) ::::Yes, it should. Let me know if you see any problems. —Moviesign (talk) 15:05, January 27, 2018 (UTC) ::::: working fine, added #123 and it showed up both in the index and year page after the cache caught up. I made the pages 1976-1979 with the new page name, "Dragon issues from Year", so the old pages (Dragon Magazine 1976, Dragon Magazine 1977, Dragon Magazine 1978 and Dragon Magazine 1979) can be deleted at your convenience. Cheers! --Regis87 (talk) 15:58, January 27, 2018 (UTC) :::::: Thanks for changing the titles! ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:44, January 28, 2018 (UTC) Anthologies Regis87: Looking ahead, you've got a half-dozen "Best of" and a like number of Annuals that are a bit different than all the rest. I'm thinking of lumping these together in one list since they do not overlap in years, but we can keep them separate if we give them a unique category if you wish. I notice that the anthologies use the template instead of the template. Are these really large-format paperback books rather than magazines? Take a look at the two templates and pick the one you think is most appropriate, or has the parameters you need, and let me know if you want anything else. Great work! —Moviesign (talk) 02:11, January 28, 2018 (UTC) : Ok will do. I have a them all, I'll dig them out in the morning, see how big they are. I'm gonna clean one or two more issues from 1999 before i go to sleep (cleaning the ones we have before I add the missing digital issues). Having them in one list works too, good idea. --Regis87 (talk) 02:18, January 28, 2018 (UTC) :: Ok i checked them out, the "best Of" issues are under 100 pages, and the "Annual" issues are over 100 pages but under 150 pages. --Regis87 (talk) 17:11, January 28, 2018 (UTC) ::: How are they bound? ~ Lhynard (talk) 17:44, January 28, 2018 (UTC) :::: The annuals are glue, they have thicker spines, with text. Best of, staples. --Regis87 (talk) 17:57, January 28, 2018 (UTC) :::::I think we could go with the template then, right? If you rework the pages, I'll make a list template. —Moviesign (talk) 01:10, February 1, 2018 (UTC) :::::: Ok good call. The Annual pages are already made, but called "Dragon Magazine Annual (YEAR)" should they stay that way or be titled "Dragon Annual X" like i see everywhere else? Regis87 (talk) 13:09, February 1, 2018 (UTC) ::::::: They should have whatever titles they have on the covers. If this means a major renaming, oh well, we should do it to be correct. Again, Movie can probably help automate some of that. ~ Lhynard (talk) 13:49, February 1, 2018 (UTC) :::::::: Dragon Annual then #, with magazine in small vertical text along Dragon, as seen here --Regis87 (talk) 13:58, February 1, 2018 (UTC) ::::::::: I prefer Dragon Annual 2. I'd be OK with Dragon Annual Number 2, Dragon Magazine Annual 2, or Dragon Magazine Annual Number 2. What we currently have is definitely my least favorite. ~ Lhynard (talk) 14:04, February 1, 2018 (UTC) :::::::::: I also favour "Dragon Annual X". Its only 6 articles so if we need to manually change links, such as the chronology or the image summary, its not a huge task. Regis87 (talk) 14:23, February 1, 2018 (UTC) Navbar bot Is there a way to get a bot to add the navbar code to the existing pages? #8-#84 need it, and #365, #366, #367, #371, #372, #373, #375, #376, #378, #381, #386, #407, #408, #409, #410. I don't mind adding it manually, but it would speed it along quite a bit, I can focus on getting the remaining issues created. --Regis87 (talk) 01:00, January 30, 2018 (UTC) :Yes, I think I can do that. Sorry I didn't suggest it sooner. —Moviesign (talk) 01:37, January 30, 2018 (UTC) :Done. —Moviesign (talk) 01:59, January 30, 2018 (UTC) Good Article Status What would need to be done to make this article qualify for Good Article status? --Regis87 (talk) 22:33, May 10, 2018 (UTC) : I just nominated it for you (with the Good article nominees tag). Whenever it comes up in my to-do list of projects I check through for any new nominees. The qualifications are listed here: Forgotten Realms Wiki:Good articles. ~ Lhynard (talk) 22:53, May 10, 2018 (UTC) Good Article status ; Correct : yes ; Referenced : no (We need to support more of the paragraphs with citations, I think.) ; Formatted : maybe (This article is somewhat unique, as it contains a lot of tables and lists. This is not necessarily bad, but it might be worth getting some consensus about some of them. I personally have some minor stylistic things I'd like to tweak, which I'll do soon-ish.) ; Clean : yes ; Nearly complete : yes ; Policy-adherent/Demonstrative : yes (But see comment above.) Featured Source I'd like to nominate this lovely article as a Featured Source. --Regis87 (talk) 16:45, January 9, 2020 (UTC)